Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                       G. VaudreuilRequest for Comments: 2421                           Lucent TechnologiesObsoletes:1911                                               G. ParsonsCategory: Standards Track                               Northern Telecom                                                          September 1998Voice Profile for Internet Mail - version 2Status of this Memo   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.Overview   This document profiles Internet mail for voice messaging.  It   obsoletesRFC 1911 which describes version 1 of the profile.  A list   of changes from that document are noted inAppendix F.  As well,Appendix A summarizes the protocol profiles of this version of VPIM.   Please send comments on this document to the EMA VPIM Work Group   mailing list:  <vpim-l@ema.org>Working Group Summary   This profile is not the product of an IETF working group, though   several have reviewed the document.  It is instead the product of the   VPIM Work Group of the Electronic Messaging Association (EMA).  This   work group, which has representatives from most major voice mail   vendors and several email vendors, has held several interoperability   demonstrations between voice messaging vendors and is currently   promoting VPIM trials and deployment.Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998Table of Contents1. ABSTRACT .........................................................32. SCOPE ............................................................32.1 Voice Messaging System Limitations ............................32.2 Design Goals ..................................................43. PROTOCOL RESTRICTIONS ............................................54. VOICE MESSAGE INTERCHANGE FORMAT .................................64.1 Message Addressing Formats ....................................64.2 Message Header Fields .........................................94.3 Voice Message Content Types ..................................154.4 Other Message Content Types ..................................214.5 Forwarded Messages ...........................................234.6 Reply Messages ...............................................234.7 Notification Messages ........................................245. MESSAGE TRANSPORT PROTOCOL ......................................245.1 ESMTP Commands ...............................................255.2 ESMTP Keywords ...............................................275.3 ESMTP Parameters - MAIL FROM .................................285.4 ESMTP Parameters - RCPT TO ...................................295.5 ESMTP - SMTP Downgrading .....................................296. DIRECTORY ADDRESS RESOLUTION ....................................307. IMAP ............................................................308. MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS ............................................308.1 Network Management ...........................................319. CONFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ........................................3110. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................3210.1 General Directive ...........................................3210.2 Threats and Problems ........................................3210.3 Security Techniques .........................................3311. REFERENCES .....................................................3312. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................3613. AUTHORS' ADDRESSES .............................................3614. APPENDIX A - VPIM REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY .........................3715. APPENDIX B - EXAMPLE VOICE MESSAGES ............................4516. APPENDIX C - EXAMPLE ERROR VOICE PROCESSING ERROR CODES ........5017. APPENDIX D - EXAMPLE VOICE PROCESSING DISPOSITION TYPES ........5118. APPENDIX E - IANA REGISTRATIONS ................................5218.1 vCard EMAIL Type Definition for VPIM ........................5218.2 Voice Content-Disposition Parameter Definition ..............5219. APPENDIX F - CHANGE HISTORY:RFC 1911 TO THIS DOCUMENT .........5420. FULL COPYRIGHT NOTICE ..........................................56Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 19981. Abstract   A class of special-purpose computers has evolved to provide voice   messaging services.  These machines generally interface to a   telephone switch and provide call answering and voice messaging   services.  Traditionally, messages sent to a non-local machine are   transported using analog networking protocols based on DTMF signaling   and analog voice playback.  As the demand for networking increases,   there is a need for a standard high-quality digital protocol to   connect these machines.  The following document is a profile of the   Internet standard MIME and ESMTP protocols for use as a digital voice   messaging networking protocol. The profile is referred to as VPIM   (Voice Profile for Internet Mail) in this document.   This profile is based on earlier work in the Audio Message   Interchange Specification (AMIS) group that defined a voice messaging   protocol based on X.400 technology.  This profile is intended to   satisfy the user requirements statement from that earlier work with   the industry standard ESMTP/MIME mail protocol infrastructures   already used within corporate intranets. This second version of VPIM   is based on implementation experience and obsoletesRFC 1911 which   describes version 1 of the profile.2. Scope   MIME is the Internet multipurpose, multimedia messaging standard.   This document explicitly recognizes its capabilities and provides a   mechanism for the exchange of various messaging technologies,   primarily voice and facsimile.   This document specifies a restricted profile of the Internet   multimedia messaging protocols for use between voice processing   server platforms.  These platforms have historically been special-   purpose computers and often do not have the same facilities normally   associated with a traditional Internet Email-capable computer.  As a   result, VPIM also specifies additional functionality as it is needed.   This profile is intended to specify the minimum common set of   features to allow interworking between compliant systems.2.1 Voice Messaging System Limitations   The following are typical limitations of voice messaging platform   which were considered in creating this baseline profile.     1) Text messages are not normally received and often cannot be     easily displayed or viewed.  They can often be processed only via     text-to-speech or text-to-fax features not currently present in     many of these machines.Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998     2) Voice mail machines usually act as an integrated Message     Transfer Agent, Message Store and User Agent.  There is no relaying     of messages, andRFC 822 header fields may have limited use in the     context of the limited messaging features currently deployed.     3) Voice mail message stores are generally not capable of     preserving the full semantics of an Internet message.  As such, use     of a voice mail machine for gatewaying is not supported.  In     particular, storage of recipient lists, "Received" lines, and     "Message-ID" may be limited.     4) Internet-style distribution/exploder mailing lists are not     typically supported.  Voice mail machines often implement only     local alias lists, with error-to-sender and reply-to-sender     behavior.  Reply-all capabilities using a CC list are not generally     available.     5) Error reports must be machine-parsable so that helpful responses     can be voiced to users whose only access mechanism is a telephone.     6) The voice mail systems generally limit address entry to 16 or     fewer numeric characters, and normally do not support alphanumeric     mailbox names.  Alpha characters are not generally used for mailbox     identification as they cannot be easily entered from a telephone     terminal.2.2 Design Goals   It is a goal of this profile to make as few restrictions and   additions to the existing Internet mail protocols as possible while   satisfying the requirements for interoperability with current   generation voice messaging systems.  This goal is motivated by the   desire to increase the accessibility to digital messaging by enabling   the use of proven existing networking software for rapid development.   This specification is intended for use on a TCP/IP network; however,   it is possible to use the SMTP protocol suite over other transport   protocols.  The necessary protocol parameters for such use is outside   the scope of this document.   This profile is intended to be robust enough to be used in an   environment, such as the global Internet with installed-base gateways   which do not understand MIME, though typical use is expected to be   within corporate intranets.  Full functionality, such as reliable   error messages and binary transport, will require careful selection   of gateways (e.g., via MX records) to be used as VPIM forwarding   agents.  Nothing in this document precludes use of general purpose   MIME email packages to read and compose VPIM messages.  While noVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   special configuration is required to receive VPIM compliant messages,   some may be required to originate compliant structures.   It is expected that a VPIM messaging system will be managed by a   system administrator who can perform TCP/IP network configuration.   When using facsimile or multiple voice encodings, it is suggested   that the system administrator maintain a list of the capabilities of   the networked mail machines to reduce the sending of undeliverable   messages due to lack of feature support.  Configuration,   implementation and management of these directory listing capabilities   are local matters.3. Protocol Restrictions   This protocol does not limit the number of recipients per message.   Where possible, server implementations should not restrict the number   of recipients in a single message.  It is recognized that no   implementation supports unlimited recipients, and that the number of   supported recipients may be quite low.   This protocol does not limit the maximum message length.   Implementers should understand that some machines will be unable to   accept excessively long messages.  A mechanism is defined in theRFC1425 SMTP service extensions to declare the maximum message size   supported.   The message size indicated in the ESMTP SIZE parameter is in bytes,   not minutes or seconds.  The number of bytes varies by voice encoding   format and includes the MIME wrapper overhead.  If the length must be   known before sending, an approximate translation into minutes or   seconds can be performed if the voice encoding is known.   The following sections describe the restrictions and additions to   Internet mail protocols that are required to be compliant with this   VPIM v2 profile. Though various SMTP, ESMTP and MIME features are   described here, the implementer is referred to the relevant RFCs for   complete details. It is also advisable to check for IETF drafts of   various Internet Mail specifications that are later than the most   recent RFCs since, for example, MIME has yet to be published as a   full IETF Standard. The table inAppendix A summarizes the protocol   details of this profile.   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this   document are to be interpreted as described in [REQ].Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 19984. Voice Message Interchange Format   The voice message interchange format is a profile of the Internet   Mail Protocol Suite.  Any Internet Mail message containing the format   defined in this section is referred to as a VPIM Message in this   document.  As a result, this document assumes an understanding of the   Internet Mail specifications.  Specifically, VPIM references   components from the message format standard for Internet messages   [RFC822], the Multipurpose Internet Message Extensions [MIME], the   X.400 gateway specification [X.400], delivery status and message   disposition notifications [REPORT][DSN][DRPT][STATUS][MDN], and the   electronic business card [MIMEDIR][VCARD].4.1 Message Addressing FormatsRFC 822 addresses are based on the domain name system.  This naming   system has two components: the local part, used for username or   mailbox identification; and the host part, used for global machine   identification.4.1.1 VPIM Addresses   The local part of the address shall be a US-ASCII string uniquely   identifying a mailbox on a destination system.  For voice messaging,   the local part is a printable string containing the mailbox ID of the   originator or recipient.  While alpha characters and long mailbox   identifiers are permitted, most voice mail networks rely on numeric   mailbox identifiers to retain compatibility with the limited 10 digit   telephone keypad.  As a result, some voice messaging systems may only   be able to handle a numeric local part.  The reception of   alphanumeric local parts on these systems may result in the address   being mapped to some locally unique (but confusing to the recipient)   number or, in the worst case the address could be deleted making the   message un-replyable.  Additionally, it may be difficult to create   messages on these systems with an alphanumeric local part without   complex key sequences or some form of directory lookup (see 6).   The use of the domain naming system should be transparent to the   user.  It is the responsibility of the voice mail machine to lookup   the fully-qualified domain name (FQDN) based on the address entered   by the user (see 6).   In the absence of a global directory, specification of the local part   is expected to conform to international or private telephone   numbering plans.  It is likely that private numbering plans will   prevail and these are left for local definition.  However, it is   RECOMMENDED that public telephone numbers be noted according to the   international numbering plan described in [E.164]. The indicationVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   that the local part is a public telephone number is given by a   preceding `+' (the `+' would not be entered from a telephone keypad,   it is added by the system as a flag).  Since the primary information   in the numeric scheme is contained by the digits, other character   separators (e.g.  `-') may be ignored (i.e. to allow parsing of the   numeric local mailbox) or may be used to recognize distinct portions   of the telephone number (e.g. country code).  The specification of   the local part of a VPIM address can be split into the four groups   described below:     1) mailbox number        - for use as a private numbering plan (any number of digits)        - e.g.  2722@lucent.com     2) mailbox number+extension        - for use as a private numbering plan with extensions          any number of digits, use of `+' as separator        - e.g.  2722+111@Lucent.com     3) +international number        - for international telephone numbers conforming to E.164          maximum of 15 digits        - e.g.  +16137637582@vm.nortel.ca     4) - for international telephone numbers conforming to E.164          maximum of 15 digits, with an extension (e.g. behind a          PBX) that has a maximum of 15 digits.        - e.g.  +17035245550+230@ema.org   Note that this address format is designed to be compatible with   current usage within the voice messaging industry.  It is not   compatible with the addressing formats of RFCs 2303-2304.  It is   expected that as telephony services become more widespread on the   Internet, these addressing formats will converge.4.1.2 Special Addresses   Special addresses are provided for compatibility with the conventions   of Internet mail.  These addresses do not use numeric local   addresses, both to conform to current Internet practice and to avoid   conflict with existing numeric addressing plans. Two special   addresses are RESERVED for use as follows:   postmaster@domain   By convention, a special mailbox named "postmaster" MUST exist on all   systems.  This address is used for diagnostics and should be checked   regularly by the system manager. This mailbox is particularly likelyVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   to receive text messages, which is not normal on a voice processing   platform.  The specific handling of these messages is an individual   implementation choice.   non-mail-user@domain   If a reply to a message is not possible, such as a telephone   answering message, then the special address "non-mail-user" must be   used as the originator's address.  Any text name such as "Telephone   Answering", or the telephone number if it is available, is permitted.   This special address is used as a token to indicate an unreachable   originator. For compatibility with the installed base of mail user   agents, implementations that generate this special address MUST send   a negative delivery status notification (DSN) for reply messages sent   to the undeliverable address.  The status code for such NDN's is   5.1.1 "Mailbox does not exist".   Example:       From: Telephone Answering <non-mail-user@mycompany.com>4.1.3 Distribution Lists   There are many ways to handle distribution list (DL) expansions and   none are 'standard'.  Simple alias is a behavior closest to what most   voice mail systems do today and what is to be used with VPIM   messages.  That is:     Reply to the originator - (Address in theRFC822 Reply-to or From                                field)     Errors to the submitter - (Address in the MAIL FROM: field of the                                ESMTP exchange and the Return-Path:RFC 822 field)   Some proprietary voice messaging protocols include only the recipient   of the particular copy in the envelope and include no "header fields"   except date and per-message features.  Most voice messaging systems   do not provide for "Header Information" in their messaging queues and   only include delivery information.  As a result, recipient   information MAY be in either the To or CC header fields. If all   recipients cannot be presented (e.g. unknown DL expansion) then the   recipient header fields MUST be omitted to indicate that an accurate   list of recipients (e.g. for use with a reply-all capability) is not   known.Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 19984.2 Message Header Fields   Internet messages contain a header information block.  This header   block contains information required to identify the sender, the list   of recipients, the message send time, and other information intended   for user presentation.  Except for specialized gateway and mailing   list cases, header fields do not indicate delivery options for the   transport of messages.   Distribution list processors are noted for modifying or adding to the   header fields of messages that pass through them.  VPIM systems MUST   be able to accept and ignore header fields that are not defined here.   The following header lines are permitted for use with VPIM voice   messages:4.2.1 From   The originator's fully-qualified domain address (a mailbox address   followed by the fully-qualified domain name).  The user listed in   this field should be presented in the voice message envelope as the   originator of the message.   Systems compliant with this profile SHOULD provide the text personal   name of the voice message originator in a quoted phrase, if the name   is available.  Text names of corporate or positional mailboxes MAY be   provided as a simple string. From [RFC822]   Example:       From: "Joe S. User" <12145551212@mycompany.com>       From: Technical Support <611@serviceprovider.com>   The From address SHOULD be used for replies (see 4.6).  However, if   the From address contains <non-mail-user@domain>, the user SHOULD NOT   be offered the option to reply, nor should notifications be sent to   this address.   Voice mail machines may not be able to support separate attributes   for the FROM, REPLY-TO, and SENDER header field and the SMTP MAIL   FROM command, VPIM conforming systems SHOULD set these values to the   same address.  Use of addresses different than those present in the   From header field address may result in unanticipated behavior.Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                     [Page 9]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 19984.2.2 To   The To header contains the recipient's fully-qualified domain   address.  There may be one or more To: fields in any message.   Example:       To: +12145551213@mycompany.com   Systems compliant to this profile SHOULD provide a list of recipients   only if all recipients are provided.  The To header MUST NOT be   included in the message if the sending message transport agent (MTA)   cannot resolve all the addresses in it, e.g. if an address is a DL   alias for which the expansion is unknown (see 4.1.3).  If present,   the addresses in the To header MAY be used for a reply message to all   recipients.   Systems compliant to this profile MAY also discard the To addresses   of incoming messages because of the inability to store the   information.  This would, of course, make a reply-to-all capability   impossible.4.2.3 Cc   The cc header contains additional recipients' fully-qualified domain   addresses. Many voice mail systems maintain only sufficient envelope   information for message delivery and are not capable of storing or   providing a complete list of recipients.   Systems compliant to this profile SHOULD provide a list of recipients   only if all disclosed recipients can be provided.  The list of   disclosed recipients does not include those sent via a blind copy. If   not, systems SHOULD omit the To and Cc header fields to indicate that   the full list of recipients is unknown.   Example:       Cc: +12145551213@mycompany.com   Systems compliant to this profile MAY discard the Cc addresses of   incoming messages as necessary.    If a list of Cc or to addresses is   present, these addresses MAY be used for a reply message to all   recipients.Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 10]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 19984.2.4 Date   The Date header contains the date, time, and time zone in which the   message was sent by the originator.  The time zone SHOULD be   represented in a four-digit time zone offset, such as -0500 for North   American Eastern Standard Time.  This may be supplemented by a time   zone name in parentheses, e.g., "-0900 (PDT)".  Compliant   implementations SHOULD be able to convertRFC 822 date and time   stamps into local time.   Example:       Date: Wed, 28 Jul 96 10:08:49 -0800 (PST)   The sending system MUST report the time the message was sent. If the   VPIM sender is relaying a message from a system which does not   provide a time stamp, the time of arrival at the VPIM system SHOULD   be used as the date.  From [RFC822]4.2.5 Sender   The Sender header field contains the actual address of the originator   if the message is sent by an agent on behalf of the author indicated   in the From: field. This header field MAY be sent by VPIM conforming   system.  If it is present in a VPIM message, the receiving VPIM   implementation may ignore the field and only present the From header   field.4.2.6 Return Path   The Return-path header is added by the final delivering SMTP server.   If present, it contains the address from the MAIL FROM parameter of   the ESMTP exchange (see 5.1.2). Any error messages resulting from the   delivery failure MUST be sent to this address (see [DRPT] for   additional details).  Note that if the Return-path is null ("<>"),   e.g. no path, loop prevention or confidential, a notification MUST   NOT be sent.  If the Return path address is not available (either   from this header or the MAIL FROM parameter) the From address may be   used to deliver notifications.4.2.7 Message-id   The Message-id header contains a unique per-message identifier.  A   unique message-id MUST be generated for each message sent from a   compliant implementation.   The message-id is not required to be stored on the receiving system.   This identifier MAY be used for tracking, auditing, and returningVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   receipt notification reports.  From [RFC822]   Example:       Message-id: <12345678@mycompany.com>4.2.8 Reply-To   If present, the reply-to header provides a preferred address to which   reply messages should be sent (see 4.6).  Typically, voice mail   systems can only support one originator of a message so it is   unlikely that this field can be supported.  A compliant system SHOULD   NOT send a Reply-To header. However, if a reply-to header is present,   a reply-to sender message MAY be sent to the address specified (that   is, overwriting From). From [RFC822] This preferred address of the   originator must also be provided in the originator's vCard EMAIL   attribute, if present (see 4.3.3).4.2.9 Received   The Received header contains trace information added to the beginning   of aRFC 822 message by MTAs.  This is the only header permitted to   be added by an MTA.  Information in this header is useful for   debugging when using an US-ASCII message reader or a header parsing   tool.   A compliant system MUST add Received header fields when acting as a   gateway and MUST NOT remove any Received fields when relaying   messages to other  MTAs or gateways..  These header fields MAY be   ignored or deleted when the message is received at the final   destination. From [RFC822]4.2.10 MIME Version   The MIME-Version header indicates that the message conforms to the   MIME message format specification. Systems compliant with this   specification SHOULD include a comment with the words "(Voice 2.0)".RFC 1911 defines an earlier version of this profile and uses the   token (Voice 1.0). From [MIME1][VPIM1]   Example:       MIME-Version: 1.0 (Voice 2.0)   This identifier is intended for information only and SHOULD NOT be   used to semantically identify the message as being a VPIM message.   Instead, the presence of the content defined in [V-MSG] SHOULD be   used if identification is necessary.Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 12]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 19984.2.11 Content-Type   The content-type header declares the type of content enclosed in the   message. The typical top level content in a VPIM Message SHOULD be   multipart/voice-message, a mechanism for bundling several components   into a single identifiable voice message.  The allowable contents are   detailed insection 4.3 of this document.  From [MIME2]4.2.12 Content-Transfer-Encoding   Because Internet mail was initially specified to carry only 7-bit   US-ASCII text, it may be necessary to encode voice and fax data into   a representation suitable for that environment.  The content-   transfer-encoding header describes this transformation if it is   needed.  Compliant implementations MUST recognize and decode the   standard encodings, "Binary", "7bit, "8bit", "Base64" and "Quoted-   Printable".  The allowable content-transfer-encodings are specified   insection 4.3.  From [MIME1]4.2.13 Sensitivity   The sensitivity header, if present, indicates the requested privacy   level.  The case-insensitive values "Personal" and "Private" are   specified. If no privacy is requested, this field is omitted.   If a sensitivity header is present in the message, a compliant system   MUST prohibit the recipient from forwarding this message to any other   user.  A compliant system, however, SHOULD allow the responder to   reply to a sensitive message, but SHOULD NOT include the original   message content.  The sensitivity of the reply message MAY be set by   the responder.   If the receiving system does not support privacy and the sensitivity   is one of "Personal" or "Private", a negative delivery status   notification must sent to the originator with the appropriate status   code indicating that privacy could not be assured. The message   contents SHOULD  be returned to the sender to allow for a voice   context with the notification. A non-delivery notification to a   private message SHOULD NOT be tagged private since it will be sent to   the originator.  From: [X.400]4.2.14 Importance   Indicates the requested importance to be given by the receiving   system.  The case-insensitive values "low", "normal" and "high" are   specified.  If no special importance is requested, this header may be   omitted and the value assumed to be "normal".Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 13]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   Compliant implementations MAY use this header to indicate the   importance of a message and may order messages in a recipient's   mailbox. From: [X.400]4.2.15 Subject   The subject field is often provided by email systems but is not   widely supported on Voice Mail platforms. For compatibility with text   based mailbox interfaces, a text subject field SHOULD be generated by   a compliant implementation but MAY be discarded if present by a   receiving system.  From [RFC822]   It is recommended that voice messaging systems that do not support   any text user interfaces (e.g. access only by a telephone) insert a   generic subject header of "VPIM Message" for the benefit of text   enabled recipients.4.2.16 Disposition-Notification-To   This header MAY be present to indicate that the sender is requesting   a receipt notification from the receiving user agent.  This message   disposition notification (MDN) is typically sent by the user agent   after the user has listened to the message and consented to an MDN   being sent   Example:       Disposition-notification-to: +12145551213@mycompany.com   The presence of a Disposition-notification-to header in a message is   merely a request for an MDN described in 4.4.5.  The recipients' user   agents are always free to silently ignore such a request so this   header does not burden any system that does not support it.  From   [MDN].4.2.17 Disposition-Notification-Options   This header MAY be present to define future extensions parameters for   an MDN requested by the presence of the header in the previous   section.  Currently no parameters are defined by this document or by   [MDN].  However, this header MUST be parsed if present, if MDNs are   supported.  If it contains a extension parameter that is required for   proper MDN generation (noted with "=required"), then an MDN MUST NOT   be sent if the parameter is not understood.  See [MDN] for complete   details.Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 14]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   Example:       Disposition-notification-options:          whizzbang=required,foo4.3 Voice Message Content Types   MIME, introduced in [MIME1], is a general-purpose message body format   that is extensible to carry a wide range of body parts.  It provides   for encoding binary data so that it can be transported over the 7-bit   text-oriented SMTP protocol.  This transport encoding (denoted by the   Content-Transfer-Encoding header field) is in addition to the audio   encoding required to generate a binary object.   MIME defines two transport encoding mechanisms to transform binary   data into a 7 bit representation, one designed for text-like data   ("Quoted-Printable"), and one for arbitrary binary data ("Base64").   While Base64 is dramatically more efficient for audio data, either   will work.  Where binary transport is available, no transport   encoding is needed, and the data can be labeled as "Binary".   An implementation in compliance with this profile SHOULD send audio   and/or facsimile data in binary form when binary message transport is   available.  When binary transport is not available, implementations   MUST encode the audio and/or facsimile data as Base64.  The detection   and decoding of "Quoted-Printable", "7bit", and "8bit" MUST be   supported in order to meet MIME requirements and to preserve   interoperability with the fullest range of possible devices.   However, if a content is received in a transfer encoding that cannot   be rendered to the user, an appropriate negative delivery status   notification MUST be sent.   The content types described in this section are identified for use   within the multipart/voice-message content.  This content, which is   the fundamental part of a VPIM message, is referred to as a VPIM   voice message in this document.   Only the contents profiled subsequently can be sent within a VPIM   voice message construct (i.e., the mulitpart/voice-message content   type) to form a simple or a more complex structure (several examples   are given inAppendix B).  The presence of other contents within a   VPIM voice message is an error condition and SHOULD result in a   negative delivery status notification.  When multiple contents are   present within the multipart/voice-message, they SHOULD be presented   to the user in the order that they appear in the message.Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 15]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 19984.3.1 Multipart/Voice-Message   This MIME multipart structure provides a mechanism for packaging a   voice message into one container that is tagged as VPIM v2 compliant.   The semantic of multipart/Voice-Message (defined in [V-MSG]) is   identical to multipart/mixed and may be interpreted as that by   systems that do not recognize this content-type.   The Multipart/Voice-Message content-type MUST only contain the   profiled media and content types specified in this section (i.e.   audio/*, image/*, message/rfc822 and text/directory).  The most   common will be: spoken name, spoken subject, the message itself,   attached fax and directory info.  Forwarded messages are created by   simply using the message/rfc822 construct.   Conformant implementations MUST send the multipart/voice-message in a   VPIM message.  In most cases, this Multipart/Voice-Message content   will be the top level (i.e. in the Content-Type header).  Conformant   implementations MUST recognize the Multipart/Voice-Message content   (whether it is a top level content or below a multipart/mixed) and be   able to separate the contents (e.g. spoken name or spoken subject).4.3.2 Message/RFC822   MIME requires support of the Message/RFC822 message encapsulation   body part.  This body part is used within a multipart/voice-message   to forward complete messages (see 4.5) or to reply with original   content (see 4.6). From [MIME2]4.3.3 Text/Directory   This content allows for the inclusion of a Versit vCard [VCARD]   electronic business card within a VPIM message.  The format is   suitable as an interchange format between applications or systems,   and is defined independent of the method used to transport it.  It   provides a useful mechanism to transport information about the   originator that can be used by the receiving VPIM system (see 6) or   other local applications   Each vCard MUST be contained within a Text/Directory content type   [MIMEDIR] within a VPIM message.  [MIMEDIR] requires that the   character set MUST be defined as a parameter value (typically us-   ascii for VPIM) and that the profile SHOULD be defined (the value   MUST be vCard within VPIM messages).   Each VPIM message SHOULD be created with a Text/Directory (vCard   profile) content type that MUST contain the preferred email address,   telephone number, and text name of the message originator as well asVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 16]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   the vCard version.  The vCard SHOULD contain the spoken name and role   of the originator, as well as the revision date.  Any other vCard   attribute MAY also be present.  The intent is that the vCard be used   as the source of information to contact the originator (e.g., reply,   call).If the text/directory content-type is included in a VPIM   message, the vCard profile [VCARD] MUST be used and MUST specify at   least the following attributes:     TEL  -    Public switched telephone number in international (E.164)               format (various types, typically VOICE)     EMAIL -   email address (various types, typically INTERNET; the               type VPIM is optionally used to denote an address that               supports VPIM messages(see 18.1))     VERSION - Indicates the version of the vCard profile.  Version 3.0               [VCARD] MUST be used.   The following attributes SHOULD be specified:     N   -   Family Name, Given Name, Additional Names, Honorific             Prefixes, and Suffixes. Because it is expected that             recipients using a telephone user interface will use the             information in the vCard to identify the originator, and             the GUI will see the information presented in the FROM             line, all present components in the text name of the FROM             header field MUST match the values provided by the Vcard.     ROLE -  The role of the person identified in `N' or `FN', but may             also be used to distinguish when the sender is a corporate             or positional mailbox     SOUND - spoken name sound data (various types, typically 32KADPCM)     REV  -  Revision of vCard in ISO 8601 date format   The vCard MAY use other attributes as defined in [VCARD] or   extensions attributes not yet defined (e.g. capabilities).   If present, the spoken name attribute MUST be denoted by a content ID   pointing to an audio/* content elsewhere in the VPIM message.   A typical VPIM message (i.e. no forwarded parts), MUST only contain   one vCard -- more than one is an error condition.  A VPIM message   that contains forwarded messages, though, may contain multiple   vCards.  However, these vCards MUST be associated with the   originator(s) of the forwarded message(s) and the originator of the   forwarding message.  As a result, all forwarded vCards will beVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 17]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   contained in message/rfc822 contents -- only the vCard of forwarding   originator will be at the top-level.   Example:     Content-Type: text/directory; charset=us-ascii; profile=vCard     Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit     BEGIN:VCARD     N:Parsons;Glenn     ORG:Northern Telecom     TEL;TYPE=VOICE;MSG;WORK:+1-613-763-7582     EMAIL;TYPE=INTERNET;glenn.parsons@nortel.ca     EMAIL;TYPE=INTERNET;VPIM:6137637582@vm.nortel.ca     SOUND;TYPE=32KADPCM;ENCODING=URI: CID:<part1@VM2-4321>     REV:19960831T103310Z     VERSION: 3.0     END:VCARD4.3.4 Audio/32KADPCM   An implementation compliant to this profile MUST send Audio/32KADPCM   by default for voice [ADPCM].  Receivers MUST be able to accept and   decode Audio/32KADPCM.  Typically this body contains several minutes   of message content, however if used for spoken name or subject the   content should be considerably shorter (i.e. about 10 and 20 seconds   respectively).   If an implementation can only handle one voice body, then multiple   voice bodies (if present) SHOULD be concatenated, and SHOULD NOT be   discarded.  It is RECOMMENDED that this be done in the same order as   they were sent. Note that if an Originator Spoken Name audio body and   a vCard are both present in a VPIM message, the vCard SOUND attribute   MUST point to this audio body (see 4.3.3).   While any valid MIME body header MAY be used, several header fields   have the following semantics when included with this body part:4.3.4.1 Content-Description:   This field MAY be present to facilitate the text identification of   these body parts in simple email readers.  Any values may be used,   though it may be useful to use values similar to those for Content-   Disposition.   Example:       Content-Description: Big Telco Voice MessageVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 18]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 19984.3.4.2 Content-Disposition:   This field MUST be present to allow the parsable identification of   these body parts.  This is especially useful if, as is typical, more   than one Audio/32KADPCM body occurs within a single level (e.g.   multipart/voice-message).  Since a VPIM voice message is intended to   be automatically played upon display of the message, in the order in   which the audio contents occur, the audio contents must always be of   type inline.  However, it is still useful to include a filename   value, so this should be present if this information is available.   From [DISP]   In order to distinguish between the various types of audio contents   in a VPIM voice message a new disposition parameter "voice" is   defined with the parameter values below to be used as appropriate   (see 18.2):     Voice-Message - the primary voice message,     Voice-Message-Notification - a spoken delivery notification       or spoken disposition notification,     Originator-Spoken-Name - the spoken name of the originator,     Recipient-Spoken-Name - the spoken name of the recipient if       available to the originator and present if there is ONLY one       recipient,     Spoken-Subject- the spoken subject of the message, typically       spoken by the originator   Note that there SHOULD only be one instance of each of these types of   audio contents per message level.  Additional instances of a given   type (i.e., parameter value) may occur within an attached forwarded   voice message.   Implementations that do not understand the "voice" parameter (or the   Content-Disposition header) can safely ignore it, and will present   the audio bodyparts in order (but will not be able to distinguish   between them).   Example:       Content-Disposition: inline; voice=spoken-subject;                           filename="msg001.726"4.3.4.3 Content-Duration:   This field MAY be present to allow the specification of the length of   the audio bodypart in seconds.  The use of this field on reception is   a local implementation issue.  From [DUR]Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 19]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   Example:       Content-Duration: 334.3.4.4 Content-Language:   This field MAY be present to allow the specification of the spoken   language of the audio bodypart.  The encoding is defined in [LANG].   The use of this field on reception is a local implementation issue.   Example for UK English:       Content-Language: en-UK4.3.5 Image/Tiff   A common image encoding for facsimile, known as TIFF-F, is a   derivative of the Tag Image File Format (TIFF) and is described in   several documents.  For the purposes of VPIM, the F Profile of TIFF   for Facsimile (TIFF-F) is defined in [TIFF-F] and the image/tiff MIME   content type is defined in [TIFFREG].  While there are several   formats of TIFF, only TIFF-F is profiled for use in a VPIM voice   message.  Further, since the TIFF-F file format is used in a store-   and-forward mode with VPIM, the image MUST be encoded so that there   is only one image strip per facsimile page.   All VPIM implementations that support facsimile SHOULD generate   TIFF-F compatible facsimile contents in the image/tiff;   application=faxbw sub-type encoding by default.  An implementation   MAY send this fax content in VPIM voice messages and MUST be able to   recognize and display it in received messages.  If a fax message is   received that cannot be rendered to the user (e.g. the receiving VPIM   system does not support fax), then the system MUST return the message   with a negative delivery status notification with a media not   supported status code.   While any valid MIME body header MAY be used (e.g., Content-   Disposition to indicate the filename), none are specified to have   special semantics for VPIM and MAY be ignored.  Note that the content   type parameter application=faxbw MUST be included in outbound   messages.  However, inbound messages with or without this parameter   MUST be rendered to the user (if the rendering software encounters an   error in the file format, some form of negative delivery status   notification MUST be sent to the originator).Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 20]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 19984.3.6 Proprietary Voice or Fax Formats   Proprietary voice or fax encoding formats or other standard formats   MAY be supported under this profile provided a unique identifier is   registered with the IANA prior to use (see [MIME4]).  The voice   encodings should be registered as sub-types of Audio and the fax   encodings should be registered as sub-types of Image   Use of any other encoding except audio/32kadpcm or image/tiff;   application=faxbw reduces interoperability in the absence of explicit   manual system configuration.  A compliant implementation MAY use any   other encoding with explicit per-destination configuration.4.4 Other Message Content Types   An implementation compliant with this profile MAY send additional   contents in a VPIM message, but ONLY outside of the multipart/voice-   message.  The content types described in this section are identified   for use with this profile. Additional contents not defined in this   profile MUST NOT be used without prior explicit per-destination   configuration. If an implementation receives a VPIM message that   contains content types not specified in this profile, their handling   is a local implementation issue (e.g. the unknown contents MAY be   discarded if they cannot be presented to the recipient).  Conversely,   if an implementation receives a non-VPIM message (i.e., without a   mulitpart/voice-message content type) with any of the contents   defined in 4.3 & 4.4, it SHOULD deliver those contents, but the full   message handling is a local issue (e.g. the unknown contents _or_ the   entire message MAY be discarded).  Implementations MUST issue   negative delivery status notifications to the originator when any   form of non-delivery to the recipient occurs.   The multipart contents defined below MAY be sent as the top level of   a VPIM message (with other noted contents below them as required.) As   well, the multipart/mixed content SHOULD be used as the top level of   a VPIM message to form a more complex structure (e.g., with   additional content types).  When multiple contents are present, they   SHOULD be presented to the user in the order that they appear in the   message.  Several examples are given inAppendix B.4.4.1 Multipart/Mixed   MIME provides the facilities for enclosing several body parts in a   single message. Multipart/Mixed SHOULD only be used for sending   complex voice or multimedia messages.  That is, as the top level   Content-Type when sending one of the following contents (in addition   to the VPIM voice message) in a VPIM message.  Compliant systems MUST   accept multipart/mixed body parts.  From [MIME2]Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 21]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 19984.4.2 Text/Plain   MIME requires support of the basic Text/Plain content type.  This   content type has limited applicability within the voice messaging   environment.  However, because VPIM is a MIME profile, MIME   requirements should be met.  Compliant VPIM implementations SHOULD   NOT send the Text/Plain content-type.  Compliant implementations MUST   accept Text/Plain messages, however, specific handling is left as an   implementation decision. From [MIME2]   There are several mechanisms that can be used to support text (once   accepted) on voice messaging systems including text-to-speech and   text-to-fax conversions.  If no rendering of the text is possible   (i.e., it is not possible for the recipient to determine if the text   is a critical part of the message), the entire message MUST be   returned to the sender with a negative delivery status notification   and a media-unsupported status code.4.4.3 Multipart/Report   The Multipart/Report is used for enclosing human-readable and machine   parsable notification (e.g. Message/delivery-status) body parts and   any returned message content. The multipart/report content-type is   used to deliver both delivery status reports indicating transport   success or failure and message disposition notifications to indicate   post-delivery events such as receipt notification. Compliant   implementations MUST use the Multipart/Report construct. Compliant   implementations MUST recognize and decode the Multipart/Report   content type and its components in order to present the report to the   user.  From [REPORT]   Multipart/Report messages from VPIM implementations SHOULD include   the human-readable description of the error as a spoken audio/*   content (this speech SHOULD also be made available to the   notification recipient).  As well, VPIM implementations MUST be able   to handle (and MAY generate) Multipart/Report messages that encode   the human-readable description of the error as text.  Note that per   [DSN] the human-readable part MUST always be present.4.4.4 Message/Delivery-status   This MIME body part is used for sending machine-parsable delivery   status notifications.  Compliant implementations MUST use the   Message/delivery-status construct when returning messages or sending   warnings.  Compliant implementations MUST recognize and decode the   Message/delivery-status content type and present the reason for   failure to the sender of the message.  From [DSN]Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 22]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 19984.4.5 Message/Disposition-notification   This MIME body part is used for sending machine-parsable receipt   notification message disposition notifications.  Conforming   implementations SHOULD use the Message/Disposition-notification   construct when sending post-delivery message status notifications.   These MDNs, however, MUST only be sent in response to the presence of   the Disposition-notification-to header in 4.2.16.  Conforming   implementations should recognize and decode the Message/Disposition-   notification content type and present the notification to the user.   From [MDN]4.5 Forwarded Messages   VPIM version 2 explicitly supports the forwarding of voice and fax   content with voice or fax annotation.  However, only the two   constructs described below are acceptable in a VPIM message.  Since   only the first (i.e. message/rfc822) can be recognized as a forwarded   message (or even multiple forwarded messages), it is RECOMMENDED that   this construct be used whenever possible.   Forwarded VPIM messages SHOULD be sent as a multipart/voice-message   with the entire original message enclosed in a message/rfc822 content   type and the annotation as a separate Audio/* or image/* body part.   If theRFC822 header fields are not available for the forwarded   content, simulated header fields with available information SHOULD be   constructed to indicate the original sending timestamp, and the   original sender as indicated in the "From" line.  However, note that   at least one of "From", "Subject", or "Date" MUST be present.  As   well, the message/rfc822 content MUST include at least the "MIME-   Version", and "Content-Type" header fields. From [MIME2]   In the event that forwarding information is lost through   concatenation of the original message and the forwarding annotation,   such as must be done in a gateway between VPIM and the AMIS voice   messaging protocol, the entire audio content MAY be sent as a single   Audio/* segment without including any forwarding semantics.4.6 Reply Messages   Replies to VPIM messages (and Internet mail messages) are addressed   to the address noted in the reply-to header (see 4.2.8) if it is   present, else the From address (see 4.2.1) is used. The vCard EMAIL   attribute, if present, SHOULD be the same as the reply-to address and   may be the same as the From address.  While the vCard is the senders   preferred address it SHOULD NOT be used to generate a reply.  Also,   the Return-path address should not be used for replies.Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 23]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   Support of multiple originator header fields is often not possible on   voice messaging systems, so it may be necessary to choose only one   when gatewaying a VPIM message to another voice message system.   However, implementers should note that this may make it impossible to   send error messages and replies to their proper destinations.   In some cases, a reply message is not possible, such as with a   message created by telephone answering (i.e. classic voice mail).  In   this case, the From field MUST contain the special address non-mail-   user@domain (see 4.1.2).  A null ESMTP MAIL FROM address SHOULD also   be used in this case (see 5.1.2).  A receiving VPIM system SHOULD NOT   offer the user the option to reply to this kind of message.4.7 Notification Messages   VPIM delivery status notification messages (4.4.4) MUST be sent to   the originator of the message when any form of non-delivery of the   subject message or its components occurs.  These error messages must   be sent to the return path (4.2.6) if present, otherwise, the From   (4.2.1) address may be used.   VPIM Receipt Notification messages (4.4.5) should be sent to the   sender specified in the Disposition-Notification-To header field   (4.2.16), only after the message has been presented to the recipient   or if the message has somehow been disposed of without being   presented to the recipient (e.g. if it were deleted before playing   it).   VPIM Notification messages may be positive or negative, and can   indicate delivery at the server or receipt by the client.  However,   the notification MUST be contained in a multipart/report container   (4.4.3) and SHOULD contain a spoken error message.   If a VPIM system receives a message with contents that are not   understood (see 4.3 & 4.4), its handling is a local matter.  A   delivery status notification SHOULD be generated if the message could   not be delivered because of unknown contents (e.g., on traditional   voice processing systems).  In some cases, the message may be   delivered (with a positive DSN sent) to a mailbox before the   determination of rendering can be made.5. Message Transport Protocol   Messages are transported between voice mail machines using the   Internet Extended Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (ESMTP).  All   information required for proper delivery of the message is included   in the ESMTP dialog.  This information, including the sender and   recipient addresses, is commonly referred to as the messageVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 24]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   "envelope".  This information is equivalent to the message control   block in many analog voice messaging  protocols.   ESMTP is a general-purpose messaging protocol, designed both to send   mail and to allow terminal console messaging.  Simple Mail Transport   Protocol (SMTP) was originally created for the exchange of US-ASCII   7-bit text messages.  Binary and 8-bit text messages have   traditionally been transported by encoding the messages into a 7-bit   text-like form.  [ESMTP] formalized an extension mechanism for SMTP,   and subsequent RFCs have defined 8-bit text networking, command   streaming, binary networking, and extensions to permit the   declaration of message size for the efficient transmission of large   messages such as multi-minute voice mail.   The following sections list ESMTP commands, keywords, and parameters   that are required and those that are optional for conformance to this   profile.5.1 ESMTP Commands5.1.1 HELO   Base SMTP greeting and identification of sender.  This command is not   to be sent by compliant systems unless the more-capable EHLO command   is not accepted.  It is included for compatibility with general SMTP   implementations.  Compliant servers MUST implement the HELO command   for backward compatibility but clients SHOULD NOT send it unless EHLO   is not supported.  From [SMTP]5.1.2 MAIL FROM (REQUIRED)   Originating mailbox.  This address contains the mailbox to which   errors should be sent.  VPIM implementations SHOULD use the same   address in the MAIL FROM command as is used in the From header field.   This address is not necessarily the same as the message Sender listed   in the message header fields if the message was received from a   gateway or sent to an Internet-style mailing list. From [SMTP,ESMTP]   The MAIL FROM address SHOULD be stored in the local message store for   the purposes of generating a delivery status notification to the   originator. The address indicated in the MAIL FROM command SHOULD be   passed as a local system parameter or placed in a Return-Path: line   inserted at the beginning of a VPIM message.  From [HOSTREQ]   Since delivery status notifications MUST be sent to the MAIL FROM   address, the use of the null address ("<>") is often used to prevent   looping of messages.  This null address MAY be used to note that a   particular message has no return path (e.g. a telephone answerVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 25]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   message).  From [SMTP]5.1.3 RCPT TO   Recipient's mailbox. The parameter to this command contains only the   address to which the message should be delivered for this   transaction.  It is the set of addresses in one or more RCPT TO   commands that are used for mail routing. From [SMTP,ESMTP]   Note: In the event that multiple transport connections to multiple   destination machines are required for the same message, the set of   addresses in a given transport connection may not match the list of   recipients in the message header fields.5.1.4 DATA   Initiates the transfer of message data.  Support for this command is   required.  Compliant implementations MUST implement the SMTP DATA   command for backwards compatibility.  From [SMTP]5.1.5 TURN   Requests a change-of-roles, that is, the client that opened the   connection offers to assume the role of server for any mail the   remote machine may wish to send.  Because SMTP is not an   authenticated protocol, the TURN command presents an opportunity to   improperly fetch mail queued for another destination.  Compliant   implementations SHOULD NOT implement the TURN command.  From [SMTP]5.1.6 QUIT   Requests that the connection be closed.  If accepted, the remote   machine will reset and close the connection.  Compliant   implementations MUST implement the QUIT command.  From [SMTP]5.1.7 RSET   Resets the connection to its initial state.  Compliant   implementations MUST implement the RSET command. From [SMTP]5.1.8 VRFY   Requests verification that this node can reach the listed recipient.   While this functionality is also included in the RCPT TO command,   VRFY allows the query without beginning a mail transfer transaction.   This command is useful for debugging and tracing problems.  Compliant   implementations MAY implement the VRFY command.  From [SMTP] (Note   that the implementation of VRFY may simplify the guessing of aVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 26]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   recipient's mailbox or automated sweeps for valid mailbox addresses,   resulting in a possible reduction in privacy.  Various implementation   techniques may be used to reduce the threat, such as limiting the   number of queries per session.)  From [SMTP]5.1.9 EHLO   The enhanced mail greeting that enables a server to announce support   for extended messaging options.  The extended messaging modes are   discussed in subsequent sections of this document.  Compliant   implementations MUST implement the ESMTP command and return the   capabilities indicated later in this memo.  From [ESMTP]5.1.10 BDAT   The BDAT command provides a higher efficiency alternative to the   earlier DATA command, especially for voice. The BDAT command provides   for native binary transport of messages. Compliant implementations   SHOULD support binary transport using the BDAT command [BINARY].5.2 ESMTP Keywords   The following ESMTP keywords indicate extended features useful for   voice messaging.5.2.1 PIPELINING   The "PIPELINING" keyword indicates ability of the receiving server to   accept new commands before issuing a response to the previous   command.  Pipelining commands dramatically improves performance by   reducing the number of round-trip packet exchanges and makes it   possible to validate all recipient addresses in one operation.   Compliant implementations SHOULD support the command pipelining   indicated by this keyword.  From [PIPE]5.2.2 SIZE   The "SIZE" keyword provides a mechanism by which the SMTP server can   indicate the maximum size message supported.  Compliant servers MUST   provide size extension to indicate the maximum size message that can   be accepted.  Clients SHOULD NOT send messages larger than the size   indicated by the server.  Clients SHOULD advertise SIZE= when sending   messages to servers that indicate support for the SIZE extension.   From [SIZE]Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 27]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 19985.2.3 CHUNKING   The "CHUNKING" keyword indicates that the receiver will support the   high-performance binary transport mode.  Note that CHUNKING can be   used with any message format and does not imply support for binary   encoded messages. Compliant implementations MAY support binary   transport indicated by this capability.  From [BINARY]5.2.4 BINARYMIME   The "BINARYMIME" keyword indicates that the SMTP server can accept   binary encoded MIME messages. Compliant implementations MAY support   binary transport indicated by this capability.  Note that support for   this feature requires support of CHUNKING.  From [BINARY]5.2.5 DSN   The "DSN" keyword indicates that the SMTP server will accept explicit   delivery status notification requests.  Compliant implementations   MUST support the delivery notification extensions in [DRPT].5.2.6 ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES   The "ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES" keyword indicates that an SMTP server   augments its responses with the enhanced mail system status codes   [CODES].  These codes can then be used to provide more informative   explanations of error conditions, especially in the context of the   delivery status notifications format defined in [DSN]. Compliant   implementations SHOULD support this capability.  From [STATUS]5.3 ESMTP Parameters - MAIL FROM5.3.1 BINARYMIME   The current message is a binary encoded MIME messages.  Compliant   implementations SHOULD support binary transport indicated by this   parameter.  From [BINARY]5.3.2 RET   The RET parameter indicates whether the content of the message should   be returned.  Compliant systems SHOULD honor a request for returned   content. From [DRPT]Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 28]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 19985.3.3 ENVID   The ENVID keyword of the SMTP MAIL command is used to specify an   "envelope identifier" to be transmitted along with the message and   included in any DSNs issued for any of the recipients named in this   SMTP transaction.  The purpose of the envelope identifier is to allow   the sender of a message to identify the transaction for which the DSN   was issued. Compliant implementations MAY use this parameter.  From   [DRPT]5.4 ESMTP Parameters - RCPT TO5.4.1 NOTIFY   The NOTIFY parameter indicates the conditions under which a delivery   report should be sent. Compliant implementations MUST honor this   request.  From [DRPT]5.4.2 ORCPT   The ORCPT keyword of the RCPT command is used to specify an   "original" recipient address that corresponds to the actual recipient   to which the message is to be delivered.  If the ORCPT esmtp-keyword   is used, it MUST have an associated esmtp-value, which consists of   the original recipient address, encoded according to the rules below.   Compliant implementations MAY use this parameter.  From [DRPT]5.5 ESMTP - SMTP Downgrading   The ESMTP extensions suggested or required for conformance to VPIM   fall into two categories.  The first category includes features which   increase the efficiency of the transport system such as SIZE,   BINARYMIME, and PIPELINING.  In the event of a downgrade to a less   functional transport system, these features can be dropped with no   functional change to the sender or recipient.   The second category of features are transport extensions in support   of new functions.  DSN and EnhancedStatusCodes provide essential   improvements in the handling of delivery status notifications to   bring email to the level of reliability expected of Voice Mail.  To   ensure a consistent level of service across an intranet or the global   Internet, it is essential that VPIM compliant ESMTP support the ESMTP   DSN extension at all hops between a VPIM originating system and the   recipient system. In the situation where a `downgrade' is unavoidable   a relay hop may be forced (by the next hop) to forward a VPIM message   without the ESMTP request for positive delivery status notification.   It is RECOMMENDED that the downgrading system should continue to   attempt to deliver the message, but MUST send an appropriate deliveryVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 29]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   notification to the originator, e.g. the message left an ESMTP host   and was sent (unreliably) via SMTP.6. Directory Address Resolution   It is the responsibility of a VPIM system to provide the fully-   qualified domain name (FQDN) of the recipient based on the address   entered by the user (if the entered address is not already a FQDN).   This would typically be an issue on systems that offered only a   telephone user interface.  The mapping of the dialed target number to   a routeable FQDN address allowing delivery to the destination system   can be accomplished through implementation-specific means.   To facilitate a local dial-by-name cache, an implementation may wish   to populate local directories with the first and last names, as well   as the address information extracted from received messages.  It is   mandated that only address information from vCard attachments to VPIM   messages be used to populate such a directory when the vCard is   available. Addresses or names parsed from the header fields of VPIM   messages SHOULD NOT be used to populate directories as it only   provides partial data.  Alternatively, bilateral agreements could be   made to allow the bulk transfer of vCards between systems.7. IMAP   The use of client/server desktop mailbox protocols like IMAP or POP   to retrieve VPIM messages from a IMAP or POP message store is   possible without any special modifications to this VPIM   specification.  Email clients (and web browsers) typically have a   table for mapping from MIME type to displaying application.  The   audio/*, image/tiff and text/directory contents can be configured so   that they invoke the correct player/recorder for rendering.  In   addition with IMAP clients, the first multipart/mixed content (if   present) will not appear since it is a generic part.  The user   instead will be presented with a message that has (for example) audio   and image contents.8. Management Protocols   The Internet protocols provide a mechanism for the management of   messaging systems, from the management of the physical network   through the management of the message queues.  SNMP should be   supported on a compliant message machine.Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 30]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 19988.1 Network Management   The digital interface to the VM and the TCP/IP protocols MAY be   managed.  MIB II MAY be implemented to provide basic statistics and   reporting of TCP and IP protocol performance [MIB II].9. Conformance Requirements   VPIM is a messaging application which must be supported in several   environments and be supported on differing devices.  These   environments include traditional voice processing systems, desktop   voice messaging systems, store and forward relays, and protocol   translation gateways.   In order to accommodate all environments, this document defines two   areas of conformance:  transport and content.   Transport conformant systems will pass VPIM messages in a store and   forward manner with assured delivery notifications and without the   loss of information.  It is expected that most store and forward   Internet mail based messaging systems will be VPIM transport   compliant.   Content conformant systems will generate and interpret VPIM messages.   Conformance in the generation of VPIM messages indicates that the   restrictions of this profile are honored.  Only contents specified in   this profile or extensions agreed to by bilateral agreement may be   sent.  Conformance in the interpretation of VPIM messages indicates   that all VPIM content types and constructs can be received;  that all   mandatory VPIM content types can be decoded and presented to the   recipient in an appropriate manner; and that any unrenderable   contents result in the appropriate notification.   A summary of the compliance requirements is contained inAppendix A.   VPIM end systems are expected to be both transport and content   conformant.  They should generate conforming content, reliably send   it to the next hop system, receive a message, decode the message and   present it to the user.  Voice messaging systems and protocol   conversion gateways are considered end systems.   Relay systems are expected to be transport compliant in order to   receive and send conforming messages.  However, they must also create   VPIM conforming delivery status notifications in the event of   delivery problems.Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 31]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   Desktop Email clients that support VPIM and are expected to be   content conformant. Desktop email clients use various protocols and   API's for exchanging messages with the local message store and   message transport system.  While these clients may benefit from VPIM   transport capabilities, specific client-server requirements are out-   of-scope for this document.10. Security Considerations10.1 General Directive   This document is a profile of existing Internet mail protocols.  To   maintain interoperability with Internet mail, any security to be   provided should be part of the of the Internet security   infrastructure, rather than a new mechanism or some other mechanism   outside of the Internet infrastructure.10.2 Threats and Problems   Both Internet mail and voice messaging have their own set of threats   and countermeasures.  As such, this specification does not create any   security issues not already existing in the profiled Internet mail   and voice mail protocols themselves.  This section attends only to   the set of additional threats which ensue from integrating the two   services.10.2.1 Spoofed sender   The actual sender of the voice message might not be the same as that   specified in the Sender or From header fields of the message content   header fields or the MAIL FROM address from the SMTP envelope.  In a   tightly constrained environment, sufficient physical and software   controls may be able to ensure prevention of this problem.  In   addition, the recognition of the senders voice may provide confidence   of the sender's identity irrespective of that specified in Sender or   From.  It should be recognized that SMTP implementations do not   provide inherent authentication of the senders of messages, nor are   sites under obligation to provide such authentication.10.2.2 Unsolicited voice mail   Assigning an Internet mail address to a voice mailbox opens the   possibility of receiving unsolicited messages (either text or voice   mail).  Traditionally voice mail systems operated in closed   environments and were not susceptible to unknown senders.  Voice mail   users have a higher expectation of mailbox privacy and may consider   such messages as a security breach.  Many Internet mail systems are   choosing to block all messages from unknown sources in an attempt toVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 32]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   curb this problem.10.2.3 Message disclosure   Users of voice messaging systems have an expectation of a level of   message privacy which is higher than the level provided by Internet   mail without security enhancements.  This expectation of privacy by   users SHOULD be preserved as much as possible.10.3 Security Techniques   Sufficient physical and software control may be acceptable in   constrained environments.  Further, the profile specified in this   document does not in any way preclude the use of any Internet object   or channel security protocol to encrypt, authenticate, or non-   repudiate the messages.11. REFERENCES   [8BIT] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D.          Crocker, "SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport",RFC1426, February 1993.   [ADPCM] Vaudreuil, G., and G. Parsons, "Toll Quality Voice - 32           kbit/s ADPCM:  MIME Sub-type Registration",RFC 2422,           September 1998.   [AMIS-A] Audio Messaging Interchange Specifications (AMIS) - Analog            Protocol Version 1, Issue 2, February 1992.   [AMIS-D] Audio Messaging Interchange Specifications (AMIS) - Digital            Protocol Version 1, Issue 3 August 1993.   [BINARY] Vaudreuil, G., "SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission of            Large and Binary MIME Messages",RFC 1830, October 1995.   [CODES] Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes",RFC 1893,           January 1996.   [MIMEDIR] Howes, T., Smith, M., and F. Dawson, "A MIME Content-Type             for Directory Information",RFC 2425, September 1998.   [DISP] Troost, R., and S. Dorner, "Communicating Presentation          Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition          Header",RFC 2183, August 1997.   [DNS1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and          specification", STD 13,RFC 1035, November 1987.Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 33]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   [DNS2] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD          13,RFC 1034, November 1987.   [DRPT] Moore, K., "SMTP Service Extensions for Delivery Status          Notifications",RFC 1891, January 1996.   [DSN] Moore, K., and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for         Delivery Status Notifications",RFC 1894, January 1996.   [DUR] Vaudreuil, G., and G. Parsons, "Content Duration MIME Header         Definition",RFC 2424, September 1998.   [E164] CCITT Recommendation E.164 (1991), Telephone Network and ISDN          Operation, Numbering, Routing and  Mobile Service - Numbering          Plan for the ISDN Era.   [ESMTP] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D.           Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions",RFC 1869, November 1995.   [G726] CCITT Recommendation G.726 (1990), General Aspects of Digital          Transmission Systems, Terminal Equipment - 40, 32, 24,16          kbit/s Adaptive Differential Pulse Code Modulation (ADPCM).   [HOSTREQ] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application             and Support", STD 3,RFC 1123, October 1989.   [LANG] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages",RFC 1766, March 1995.   [MDN] Fajman, R., "An Extensible Message Format for Message         Disposition Notifications",RFC 2298, March 1998.   [MIB II] Rose, M., "Management Information Base for Network            Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II",RFC 1158, May            1990.   [MIME1] Freed, N., and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail           Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message           Bodies",RFC 2045, November 1996.   [MIME2] Freed, N., and N. Borenstein,  "Multipurpose Internet Mail           Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types",RFC 2046, November           1996.   [MIME3] Moore, K., "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part           Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text",RFC2047, November 1996.Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 34]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   [MIME4] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and J. Postel,  "Multipurpose           Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration           Procedures",RFC 2048, November 1996.   [MIME5] Freed, N., and N. Borenstein,  "Multipurpose Internet Mail           Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and           Examples",RFC 2049, November 1996.   [PIPE] Freed, N., and A. Cargille, "SMTP Service Extension for          Command Pipelining",RFC 1854, October 1995.   [REPORT] Vaudreuil, G., "The Multipart/Report Content Type for the            Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages",RFC 1892,            January 1996.   [REQ] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement         Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997.   [RFC822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text            Messages", STD 11,RFC 822, August 1982.   [SIZE] Klensin, J., Freed, N., and K. Moore, "SMTP Service Extensions          for Message Size Declaration",RFC 1870, November 1995.   [SMTP] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10,RFC 821,          August 1982.   [STATUS] Freed, N., "SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced            Error Codes",RFC 2034, October 1996.   [TIFF-F] Parsons, G., and J. Rafferty, "Tag Image File Format:            Application F",RFC 2306, March 1998.   [TIFFREG] Parsons, G., Rafferty, J., and S. Zilles, "Tag Image File             Format: image/tiff - MIME sub-type registraion",RFC 2302,             March 1998.   [V-MSG] Vaudreuil, G., and G. Parsons, "VPIM Voice Message:  MIME           Sub-type Registration",RFC 2423, September 1998.   [VCARD] Dawson, F., and T. Howes, "vCard MIME Directory Profile",RFC2426, September 1998.   [VPIM1] Vaudreuil, G., "Voice Profile for Internet Mail",RFC 1911,           February 1996.   [X.400] Hardcastle-Kille, S., "Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO           10021 andRFC 822",RFC 1327, May 1992.Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 35]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 199812. Acknowledgments   The authors would like to offer a special thanks to the Electronic   Messaging Association (EMA), especially the members of the Voice   Messaging Committee and the VPIM Work Group, for their support of the   VPIM specification and the efforts they have made to ensure its   success.   The EMA hosts the VPIM web page athttp://www.ema.org/vpim.13. Authors' Addresses   Glenn W. Parsons   Northern Telecom   P.O. Box 3511, Station C   Ottawa, ON  K1Y 4H7   Canada   Phone: +1-613-763-7582   Fax: +1-613-763-4461   EMail: Glenn.Parsons@Nortel.ca   Gregory M. Vaudreuil   Lucent Technologies,   Octel Messaging Division   17080 Dallas Parkway   Dallas, TX  75248-1905   United States   Phone/Fax: +1-972-733-2722   EMail: GregV@Lucent.ComVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 36]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 199814.Appendix A - VPIM Requirements Summary   The following table summarizes the profile of VPIM version 2 detailed   in this document.  Since in many cases it is not possible to simplify   the qualifications for supporting each feature this appendix is   informative.  The reader is recommended to read the complete   explanation of each feature in the referenced section.  The text in   the previous sections shall be deemed authoritative if any item in   this table is ambiguous.   The conformance table is separated into various columns:     Feature - name of protocol feature (note that the indenting               indicates a hierarchy of conformance, i.e. the               conformance of a lower feature is only relevant if there               is conformance to the higher feature)     Section - reference section in main text of this document     Area - conformance area to which each feature applies:          C - content          T - transport     Status - whether the feature is mandatory, optional, or prohibited.     The key words used in this table are to be interpreted as described     in [REQ], though the following list gives a quick overview of the     different degrees of feature conformance:          Must         - mandatory          Should       - required in the absence of a compelling                         need to omit.          May          - optional          Should not   - prohibited in the absence of a compelling                         need.          Must not     - prohibited     Footnote - special comment about conformance for a particular     featureVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 37]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998                        VPIM version 2 Conformance                                                        | | | | |S| |                                             |          | | | | |H| |F                                             |          | | | | |O|M|o                                             |          | | |S| |U|U|o                                             |          | | |H| |L|S|t                                             |          |A|M|O| |D|T|n                                             |          |R|U|U|M| | |o                                             |          |E|S|L|A|N|N|t                                             |          |A|T|D|Y|O|O|t  FEATURE                                    |SECTION   | | | | |T|T|e  -------------------------------------------|----------|-|-|-|-|-|-|-                                             |          | | | | | | |  Message Addressing Formats:                |          | | | | | | |    Use DNS host names                       |4.1       |C|x| | | | |    Use only numbers in mailbox IDs          |4.1.1     |C| |x| | | |    Use alpha-numeric mailbox IDs            |4.1.1     |C| | |x| | |    Support of postmaster@domain             |4.1.2     |C|x| | | | |    Support of non-mail-user@domain          |4.1.2     |C| |x| | | |    Support of distribution lists            |4.1.3     |C| |x| | | |                                             |          | | | | | | |  Message Header Fields:                     |          | | | | | | |    Encoding outbound messages               |          | | | | | | |      From                                   |4.2.1     |C|x| | | | |        Addition of text name                |4.2.1     |C| |x| | | |      To                                     |4.2.2     |C|x| | | | |1      cc                                     |4.2.3     |C| |x| | | |1      Date                                   |4.2.4     |C|x| | | | |      Sender                                 |4.2.5     |C| | |x| | |      Return-Path                            |4.2.6     |C| | |x| | |      Message-id                             |4.2.7     |C|x| | | | |      Reply-To                               |4.2.8     |C| | | |x| |      Received                               |4.2.9     |C|x| | | | |      MIME Version: 1.0 (Voice 2.0)          |4.2.10    |C| |x| | | |      Content-Type                           |4.2.11    |C|x| | | | |      Content-Transfer-Encoding              |4.2.12    |C|x| | | | |      Sensitivity                            |4.2.13    |C| | |x| | |      Importance                             |4.2.14    |C| | |x| | |      Subject                                |4.2.15    |C| |x| | | |      Disposition-notification-to            |4.2.16    |C| | |x| | |      Disposition-notification-options       |4.2.17    |C| | |x| | |      Other Headers                          |4.2       |C| | |x| | |                                             |          | | | | | | |Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 38]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998                                                        | | | | |S| |                                             |          | | | | |H| |F                                             |          | | | | |O|M|o                                             |          | | |S| |U|U|o                                             |          | | |H| |L|S|t                                             |          |A|M|O| |D|T|n                                             |          |R|U|U|M| | |o                                             |          |E|S|L|A|N|N|t                                             |          |A|T|D|Y|O|O|t  FEATURE                                    |SECTION   | | | | |T|T|e  -------------------------------------------|----------|-|-|-|-|-|-|-    Detection & Decoding inbound messages    |          | | | | | | |      From                                   |4.2.1     |C|x| | | | |        Present text personal name           |4.2.1     |C| | |x| | |      To                                     |4.2.2     |C|x| | | | |      cc                                     |4.2.3     |C| | |x| | |      Date                                   |4.2.4     |C|x| | | | |        Conversion of Date to local time     |4.2.4     |C| |x| | | |      Sender                                 |4.2.5     |C| | |x| | |      Return-Path                            |4.2.6     |C| | |x| | |      Message ID                             |4.2.7     |C|x| | | | |      Reply-To                               |4.2.8     |C| |x| | | |      Received                               |4.2.9     |C| | |x| | |      MIME Version: 1.0 (Voice 2.0)          |4.2.10    |C| |x| | | |      Content Type                           |4.2.11    |C|x| | | | |      Content-Transfer-Encoding              |4.2.12    |C|x| | | | |      Sensitivity                            |4.2.13    |C|x| | | | |2      Importance                             |4.2.14    |C| | |x| | |      Subject                                |4.2.15    |C| | |x| | |      Disposition-notification-to            |4.2.16    |C| | |x| | |      Disposition-notification-options       |4.2.17    |C| | |x| | |      Other Headers                          |4.2       |C|x| | | | |3                                             |          | | | | | | |  Message Content Encoding:                  |          | | | | | | |    Encoding outbound audio/fax contents     |          | | | | | | |      7BIT                                   |4.3       |C| | | | |x|      8BIT                                   |4.3       |C| | | | |x|      Quoted Printable                       |4.3       |C| | | | |x|      Base64                                 |4.3       |C|x| | | | |4      Binary                                 |4.3       |C| |x| | | |5    Detection & decoding inbound messages    |          | | | | | | |      7BIT                                   |4.3       |C|x| | | | |      8BIT                                   |4.3       |C|x| | | | |      Quoted Printable                       |4.3       |C|x| | | | |      Base64                                 |4.3       |C|x| | | | |      Binary                                 |4.3       |C|x| | | | |5                                             |          | | | | | | |Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 39]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998                                                        | | | | |S| |                                             |          | | | | |H| |F                                             |          | | | | |O|M|o                                             |          | | |S| |U|U|o                                             |          | | |H| |L|S|t                                             |          |A|M|O| |D|T|n                                             |          |R|U|U|M| | |o                                             |          |E|S|L|A|N|N|t                                             |          |A|T|D|Y|O|O|t  FEATURE                                    |SECTION   | | | | |T|T|e  -------------------------------------------|----------|-|-|-|-|-|-|-  Message Content Types:                     |          | | | | | | |    Inclusion in outbound messages           |          | | | | | | |      Multipart/Voice-Message                |4.3.1     |C|x| | | | |        Message/RFC822                       |4.3.2     |C| | |x| | |        Text/Directory                       |4.3.3     |C| |x| | | |          include TEL, EMAIL, VERSION        |4.3.3     |C|x| | | | |          include ROLE, SOUND, N, REV        |4.3.3     |C| |x| | | |          only one voice type per level      |4.3.3     |C|x| | | | |        Audio/32KADPCM                       |4.3.4     |C|x| | | | |          Content-Description                |4.3.4.1   |C| | |x| | |          Content-Disposition                |4.3.4.2   |C|x| | | | |          Content-Duration                   |4.3.4.3   |C| | |x| | |          Content-Langauge                   |4.3.4.4   |C| | |x| | |        Image/tiff; application=faxbw        |4.3.5     |C| | |x| | |        Audio/* or Image/* (other encodings) |4.3.6     |C| | |x| | |      Multipart/Mixed                        |4.4.1     |C| | |x| | |      Text/plain                             |4.4.2     |C| | | |x| |      Multipart/Report                       |4.4.3     |C|x| | | | |         human-readable part is voice        |4.4.3     |C| |x| | | |         human-readable part is text         |4.4.3     |C| | |x| | |      Message/delivery-status                |4.4.4     |C|x| | | | |      Message/disposition-notification       |4.4.5     |C| |x| | | |      Other contents                         |4.4       |C| | | |x| |6                                             |          | | | | | | |    Detection & decoding in inbound messages |          | | | | | | |      Multipart/Voice-Message                |4.3.1     |C|x| | | | |        Message/RFC822                       |4.3.2     |C|x| | | | |        Text/Directory                       |4.3.3     |C| |x| | | |          recognize TEL, EMAIL, VERSION      |4.3.3     |C|x| | | | |          recognize ROLE, SOUND, N, REV      |4.3.3     |C| |x| | | |        Audio/32KADPCM                       |4.3.4     |C|x| | | | |          Content-Description                |4.3.4.1   |C| | |x| | |          Content-Disposition                |4.3.4.2   |C| |x| | | |          Content-Duration                   |4.3.4.3   |C| | |x| | |          Content-Langauge                   |4.3.4.4   |C| | |x| | |        Image/tiff; application=faxbw        |4.3.5     |C| |x| | | |          send NDN if unable to render       |4.3.5     |C|x| | | | |7Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 40]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998        Audio/* or Image/* (other encodings) |4.3.6     |C| | |x| | |      Multipart/Mixed                        |4.4.1     |C|x| | | | |      Text/plain                             |4.4.2     |C|x| | | | |        send NDN if unable to render         |4.4.2     |C|x| | | | |Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 41]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998                                            |           | | | | |S| |                                            |           | | | | |H| |F                                            |           | | | | |O|M|o                                            |           | | |S| |U|U|o                                            |           | | |H| |L|S|t                                            |           |A|M|O| |D|T|n                                            |           |R|U|U|M| | |o                                            |           |E|S|L|A|N|N|t                                            |           |A|T|D|Y|O|O|t  FEATURE                                   |SECTION    | | | | |T|T|e  ------------------------------------------|-----------|-|-|-|-|-|-|-                                            |           | | | | | | |     Multipart/Report                       |4.4.3      |C|x| | | | |       human-readable part is voice         |4.4.3      |C| |x| | | |       human-readable part is text          |4.4.3      |C|x| | | | |      Message/delivery-status               |4.4.4      |C|x| | | | |      Message/disposition-notification      |4.4.5      |C| |x| | | |      Other contents                        |4.4        |C| | | |x| |6        send NDN if unable to render        |4.4        |C| |x| | | |                                            |           | | | | | | |    Forwarded Messages                      |           | | | | | | |      use Message/RFC822 construct          |4.5        |C| |x| | | |      simulate headers if none available    |4.5        |C| |x| | | |                                            |           | | | | | | |    Reply Messages                          |           | | | | | | |      send to Reply-to, else From address   |4.6        |C|x| | | | |      do not send to non-mail-user          |4.6        |C|x| | | | |                                            |           | | | | | | |    Notifications                           |           | | | | | | |      use multipart/report format           |4.7        |C|x| | | | |      always send error on non-delivery     |4.7        |C| |x| | | |                                            |           | | | | | | |  Message Transport Protocol:               |           | | | | | | |    ESMTP Commands                          |           | | | | | | |      HELO                                  |5.1.1      |T|x| | | | |      MAIL FROM                             |5.1.2      |T|x| | | | |        support null address                |5.1.2      |T|x| | | | |      RCPT TO                               |5.1.3      |T|x| | | | |      DATA                                  |5.1.4      |T|x| | | | |      TURN                                  |5.1.5      |T| | | | |x|      QUIT                                  |5.1.6      |T|x| | | | |      RSET                                  |5.1.7      |T|x| | | | |      VRFY                                  |5.1.8      |T| | |x| | |      EHLO                                  |5.1.9      |T|x| | | | |      BDAT                                  |5.1.10     |T| | |x| | |5Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 42]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998                                                        | | | | |S| |                                             |          | | | | |H| |F                                             |          | | | | |O|M|o                                             |          | | |S| |U|U|o                                             |          | | |H| |L|S|t                                             |          |A|M|O| |D|T|n                                             |          |R|U|U|M| | |o                                             |          |E|S|L|A|N|N|t                                             |          |A|T|D|Y|O|O|t  FEATURE                                    |SECTION   | | | | |T|T|e  -------------------------------------------|----------|-|-|-|-|-|-|-                                             |          | | | | | | |    ESMTP Keywords & Parameters             |           | | | | | | |      PIPELINING                            |5.2.1      |T| |x| | | |      SIZE                                  |5.2.2      |T|x| | | | |      CHUNKING                              |5.2.3      |T| | |x| | |      BINARYMIME                            |5.2.4,5.3.1|T| | |x| | |      DSN                                   |5.2.5      |T|x| | | | |      ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES                   |5.2.6      |T| |x| | | |      RET                                   |5.3.2      |T| |x| | | |      ENVID                                 |5.3.3      |T| | |x| | |      NOTIFY                                |5.4.1      |T|x| | | | |      ORCPT                                 |5.4.2      |T| | |x| | |                                            |           | | | | | | |    ESMTP-SMTP Downgrading                   |          | | | | | | |      send delivery report upon downgrade    |                                             |          | | | | | | |  Directory Address Resolution               |          | | | | | | |    provide facility to resolve addresses    |6         |C| |x| | | |    use vCards to populate local directory   |6         |C| |x| | | |8    use headers to populate local directory  |6         |C| | | |x| |                                             |          | | | | | | |  Management Protocols:                      |          | | | | | | |    Network management                       |8.1       |T| ||x| | |  -------------------------------------------|----------|-|-|-|-|-|-|-  Footnotes:  1.  MUST NOT include if all recipients are not known or resolvable.  2.  If a sensitive message is received by a system that does not     support sensitivity, then it MUST be returned to the originator     with an appropriate error notification.  Also, a received     sensitive message MUST NOT be forwarded to anyone.  3.  If the addtional header fields are not understood they MAY be     ignored  4.  When binary transport is not available  5.  When binary transport is availableVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 43]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998  6.  Other un-profiled contents must only be sent by bilateral     agreement.  7.  If the content cannot be presented in some form, the entire     message MUST be returned with a negative delivery status     notification.  8.  When the vCard is present in a messageVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 44]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 199815.Appendix B - Example Voice Messages   The following message is a full-featured message addressed to two   recipients. The message includes the sender's spoken name and a short   speech segment.  The message is marked as important and private.   To: +19725551212@vm1.mycompany.com   To: +16135551234@VM1.mycompany.com   From: "Parsons, Glenn" <12145551234@VM2.mycompany.com>   Date: Mon, 26 Aug 93 10:20:20 -0700 (CDT)   MIME-Version: 1.0  (Voice 2.0)   Content-type: Multipart/Voice-Message; Version=2.0;     Boundary="MessageBoundary"   Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   Message-ID: 123456789@VM2.mycompany.com   Sensitivity: Private   Importance: High   --MessageBoundary   Content-type: Audio/32KADPCM   Content-Transfer-Encoding: Base64   Content-Disposition: inline; voice=Originator-Spoken-Name   Content-Language: en-US   Content-ID: part1@VM2-4321   glslfdslsertiflkTfpgkTportrpkTpfgTpoiTpdadasssdasddasdasd   (This is a sample of the base-64 Spoken Name data)   fgdhgddlkgpokpeowrit09==   --MessageBoundary   Content-type: Audio/32KADPCM   Content-Transfer-Encoding: Base64   Content-Description: Brand X Voice Message   Content-Disposition: inline; voice=Voice-Message; filename=msg1.726   Content-Duration: 25   iIiIiIjMzN3czdze3s7d7fwfHhcvESJVe/4yEhLz8/FOQjVFRERCESL/zqrq   (This is a sample of the base64 message data) zb8tFdLTQt1PXj   u7wjOyRhws+krdns7Rju0t4tLF7cE0K0MxOTOnRW/Pn30c8uHi9==   --MessageBoundary   Content-type: text/directory; charset=us-ascii; profile=vCard   Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   BEGIN:VCARD   N:Parsons;Glenn;;Mr.;   EMAIL;TYPE=INTERNET:+12145551234@VM2.mycompany.com   TEL:+1-217-555-1234Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 45]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   SOUND;TYPE=32KADPCM;ENCODING=URI: CID:<part1@VM2-4321>   REV:19951031T222710Z   VERSION: 3.0   END:VCARD   --MessageBoundary_   The following message is a forwarded single segment voice.  Both the   forwarded message and the forwarding message contain VCARDs with   spoken names.    To: +12145551212@vm1.mycompany.com    From: "Vaudreuil, Greg" <+19725552345@VM2.mycompany.com>    Date: Mon, 26 Aug 93 10:20:20 -0700 (CDT)    MIME-Version: 1.0  (Voice 2.0)    Content-type: Multipart/Voice-Message; Version=2.0;      Boundary="MessageBoundary"    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit    Message-ID: ABCD-123456789@VM2.mycompany.com    --MessageBoundary    Content-type: Audio/32KADPCM    Content-Transfer-Encoding: Base64    Content-Disposition: inline; voice=Originator-Spoken-Name    Content-Language: en-US    Content-ID: part3@VM2-4321    glslfdslsertiflkTfpgkTportrpkTpfgTpoiTpdadasssdasddasdasd    (This is a sample of the base-64 Spoken Name data)    fgdhgd dlkgpokpeowrit09==    --MessageBoundary    Content-type: Audio/32KADPCM    Content-Description: Forwarded Message Annotation    Content-Disposition: inline; voice=Voice-Message    Content-Transfer-Encoding: Base64    glslfdslsertiflkTfpgkTportrpkTpfgTpoiTpdadasssdasddasdasd    (This is the voiced introductory remarks encoded in base64)    jrgoij3o45itj09fiuvdkjgWlakgQ93ijkpokfpgokQ90gQ5tkjpokfgW    dlkgpokpeowrit09==    --MessageBoundary    Content-type: Message/RFC822    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit    To: +19725552345@VM2.mycompany.comVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 46]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998    From: "Parsons, Glenn, W." <+16135551234@VM1.mycompany.com>    Date: Mon, 26 Aug 93 8:23:10 -0500 (EST)    Content-type: Multipart/Voice-Message; Version=2.0;      Boundary="MessageBoundary2"    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit    MIME-Version: 1.0  (Voice 2.0)    --MessageBoundary2    Content-type: Audio/32KADPCM    Content-Transfer-Encoding: Base64    Content-Disposition: inline; voice=Originator-Spoken-Name    Content-Language: en-US    Content-ID: part6@VM2-4321    glslfdslsertiflkTfpgkTportrpkTpfgTpoiTpdadasssdasddasdasd    (This is a sample of the base-64 Spoken Name data) fgdhgd     dlkgpokpeowrit09==    --MessageBoundary2    Content-type: Audio/32KADPCM    Content-Disposition: inline; voice=Voice-Message    Content-Transfer-Encoding: Base64    glslfdslsertiflkTfpgkTportrpkTpfgTpoiTpdadasssdasddasdasd    (This is the original message audio data) fgwersdfmniwrjj    jrgoij3o45itj09fiuvdkjgWlakgQ93ijkpokfpgokQ90gQ5tkjpokfgW    dlkgpokpeowrit09==    --MessageBoundary2    Content-type: text/directory; charset=us-ascii    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit    BEGIN:VCARD    N:Parsons;Glenn;W;Mr.;    EMAIL;TYPE=INTERNET:+16135551234@VM2.mycompany.com    TEL:+1-613-555-1234    SOUND;TYPE=32KADPCM;ENCODING=URI: CID:<part6@VM2-4321>    REV:19951031T222710Z    END:VCARD    --MessageBoundary2--    --MessageBoundary    Content-type: text/directory; charset=us-ascii    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit    BEGIN:VCARD    N:Vaudreuil;Greg;;Mr.;Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 47]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998    SOUND;TYPE=32KADPCM;ENCODING=URI: CID:<part3@VM2-4321>    EMAIL;TYPE=INTERNET,VPIM:+19725552345@VM2.mycompany.com    TEL:+1-972-555-2345    REV:19951031T222710Z    VERSION: 3.0    END:VCARD    --MessageBoundary--    The following example is for a message returned to the sender by a    VPIM gateway at VM1.company.com for a mailbox which does not exist.    Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 17:16:05 -0400    From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@vm.company.com>    Message-Id: <199407072116.RAA14128@vm1.company.com>    Subject: Returned voice message    To: 2175552345@VM2.mycompany.com    MIME-Version: 1.0 (Voice 2.0)    Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;      boundary="RAA14128.773615765/VM1.COMPANY.COM"    --RAA14128.773615765/VM1.COMPANY.COM    Content-type: Audio/32KADPCM    Content-Description: Spoken Delivery Status Notification    Content-Disposition: inline; voice= Voice-Message-Notification    Content-Transfer-Encoding: Base64    glslfdslsertiflkTfpgkTportrpkTpfgTpoiTpdadadffsssddasdasd    (This is a voiced description of the error in base64)    jrgoij3o45itj09fiuvdkjgWlakgQ93ijkpokfpgokQ90gdffkjpokfgW    dlkgpokpeowrit09==    --RAA14128.773615765/VM1.COMPANY.COM    Content-type: message/delivery-status    Reporting-MTA: dns; vm1.company.com    Original-Recipient:rfc822; 2145551234@VM1.mycompany.com    Final-Recipient:rfc822; 2145551234@VM1.mycompany.com    Action: failed    Status: 5.1.1 (User does not exist)    Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 Mailbox not found    Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 17:15:49 -0400    --RAA14128.773615765/VM1.COMPANY.COM    content-type: message/rfc822    [original VPIM message goes here]Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 48]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998    --RAA14128.773615765/VM1.COMPANY.COM--    The following example is for a receipt notification sent to the    original sender for a message which has been played.  This    delivered VPIM message was received by a corporate gateway and    relayed to a unified mailbox.    Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 17:16:05 -0400    From: "Greg Vaudreuil" <22722@vm.company.com>    Message-Id: <199407072116.RAA14128@exchange.company.com>    Subject: Voice message played    To: 2175552345@VM2.mycompany.com    MIME-Version: 1.0 (Voice 2.0)    Content-Type: multipart/report;      Report-type=disposition-notification;      Boundary="RAA14128.773615765/EXCHANGE.COMPANY.COM"    --RAA14128.773615765/EXCHANGE.COMPANY.COM    Content-type: Audio/32KADPCM    Content-Description: Spoken Disposition Notification    Content-Disposition: inline; voice= Voice-Message-Notification    Content-Transfer-Encoding: Base64    glslfdslsertiflkTfpgkTportrpkTpfgTpoiTpdadadffsssddasdasd    (Voiced description of the disposition action in base64)    jrgoij3o45itj09fiuvdkjgWlakgQ93ijkpokfpgokQ90gdffkjpokfgW    dlkgpokpeowrit09==    --RAA14128.773615765/EXCHANGE.COMPANY.COM    Content-type: message/disposition-notification    Reporting-UA: gregs-laptop.dallas.company.com (Unified FooMail 3.0)    Original-Recipient:rfc822;22722@vm.company.com    Final-Recipient:rfc822;Greg.Vaudreuil@foomail.company.com    Original-Message-ID: <199509192301.12345@vm2.mycompany.com >    Disposition: manual-action/MDN-sent-automatically; displayed    --RAA14128.773615765/EXCHANGE.COMPANY.COM    Content-type: message/rfc822    [original VPIM message goes here]    --RAA14128.773615765/EXCHANGE.COMPANY.COM--Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 49]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 199816.Appendix C - Example Error Voice Processing Error Codes   The following common voice processing errors and their corresponding   status codes are given as examples.  Text after the error codes are   intended only for reference to describe the error code.   Implementations should provide implementation specific informative   comments after the error code rather than the text below.   Error conditionRFC 1893 Error codes   -----------------------------   --------------------------------   Analog delivery failed          4.4.0 Persistent connection error   because remote system is busy         - other   Analog delivery failed          4.4.1 Persistent protocol error   because remote system is              - no answer from host   ring-no-answer   Remote system did not answer    5.5.5 Permanent protocol error   AMIS-Analog handshake ("D" in         - wrong version   response to "C" at connect   time)   Mailbox does not exist          5.1.1 Permanent mailbox error                                         - does not exist   Mailbox full or over quota      4.2.2 Persistent mailbox error                                         - full   Disk full                       4.3.1 Persistent system error                                         - full   Command out of sequence         5.5.1 Permanent protocol error                                         - invalid command   Frame Error                     5.5.2 Permanent protocol error                                         - syntax error   Mailbox does not support FAX    5.6.1 Permanent media error                                         - not supported   Mailbox does not support TEXT   5.6.1 Permanent media error                                         - not supported   Sender is not authorized        5.7.1 Permanent security error                                         - sender not authorizedVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 50]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998   Message marked private, but     5.3.3 Permanent system error   system is not private capable         - not feature capable17.Appendix D - Example Voice Processing Disposition Types   The following common voice processing disposition conditions and   their corresponding MDN Disposition (which contains the disposition   mode, type and modifier, if applicable) are given as examples.   Implementers should refer to [MDN] for a full description of the   format of message disposition notifications.   Notification event               MDN Disposition mode, type & modifier   ------------------------------   -------------------------------------   Message played by recipient,    manual-action/MDN-sent-automatically;   receipt automatically returned  displayed   Message deleted from mailbox    manual-action/MDN-sent-automatically;   by user without listening       deleted   Message cleared when mailbox    manual-action/MDN-sent-automatically;   deleted by admin                deleted/mailbox-terminated   Message automatically deleted   automatic-action/   when older than administrator   MDN-sent-automatically; deleted/   set threshold                   expired   Message processed, however      manual-action/MDN-sent-automatically;   audio encoding unknown -        processed/error   unable to play to user          Error: unknown audio encodingVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 51]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 199818.Appendix E - IANA Registrations18.1 vCard EMAIL Type Definition for VPIM   To: ietf-mime-directory@imc.org   Subject: Registration of new parameter for text/directory MIME type   EMAIL   Type name: EMAIL   Type purpose: To specify the electronic mail address for   communication with the object the vCard represents (defined in   [VCARD]).   Type encoding: 8bit   Type value: A single text value.   Type special notes: The type may include the type parameter "TYPE" to   specify the format or preference of the electronic mail address. The   TYPE parameter values previously defined include: "internet" to   indicate an Internet addressing type, "x400" to indicate a X.400   addressing type and "pref" to indicate a preferred-use email address   when more than one is specified. The value of "vpim" is defined to   indicate that the address specified supports VPIM messages.  Other   IANA registered address type may also be specified. The default email   type is "internet". A non-standard value may also be specified.   Type example:                 EMAIL;TYPE=internet,vpim:jqpublic@xyz.dom1.com18.2 Voice Content-Disposition Parameter Definition   To: IANA@IANA.ORG   Subject: Registration of new Content-Disposition parameter   Content-Disposition parameter name: voice   Allowable values for this parameter:          Voice-Message - the primary voice message,          Voice-Message-Notification - a spoken delivery notification            or spoken disposition notification,          Originator-Spoken-Name - the spoken name of the originator,Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 52]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998          Recipient-Spoken-Name - the spoken name of the recipient if            available to the originator and present if there is ONLY one            recipient,          Spoken-Subject- the spoken subject of the message, typically            spoken by the originator   Description:   In order to distinguish between the various types of audio contents   in a VPIM voice message a new disposition parameter "voice" is   defined with the preceding values to be used as appropriate. Note   that there SHOULD only be one instance of each of these types of   audio contents per message level.  Additional instances of a given   type (i.e., parameter value) may occur within an attached forwarded   voice message.Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 53]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 199819.Appendix F - Change History:RFC 1911 to this Document   The updated profile in this document is based on the experience of a   proof of concept demonstration of VPIM at EMA'96 in April 1996 and a   subsequent demonstration of products at EMA'97 in April 1997.  This   version of the profile is significantly different from the previous   described in [VPIM1].  The changes are categorized as general,   content, transport and compliance.  They are detailed below:   1. General     - All definitions are now contained in separate documents that are     referenced by this profile.  The new documents include:        - a refined multipart/voice-message definition        - a refined (i.e., added nibble order) audio/32KADPCM definition        - the definitions of TIFF-F and image/tiff for fax images        - the Content-Duration definition     - Changed the Voice version to 2.0     - Added Table of Contents and more examples     - Various editorial updates to improve readability     - Added more security considerations   2. Content     - Modified multipart/voice-message content type by dropping the     positional dependence of contents while restricting its contents to     voice message specific content types     - Explicitly indicated other contents that may be present ina     multipart/mixed content type     - Explicitly defined the forwarding model using message/RFC822     - Explained the use of reply-to and from header fields for     addressing message replies     - Deprecated the special "loopback" address because of security     concerns and its use only for testingVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 54]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 1998     - Defined the non-mail-user reserved address to support the case in     which replies to the originator are not possible     - Eliminated the text name in the "To" and "CC" header fields.     Deprecated ordering of text names in the "From" header.     - Added support for facsimile using TIFF-F in an image/tiff;     application=faxbw content type     - Profiled vCard in the text/directory body part for transport of     directory information about the originator     - Loosened text restriction     - Added additional details on delivery and receipt notifications     - Added support for message disposition notifications, also known     as receipt notifications.     - Added suggested addressing formats     - Described handling of private messages     - Described the handling of non-profiled contents in VPIM messages     - Described the use of Content-Disposition to semantically identify     audio contents   3. Transport     - Moved binary support to optional     - Added optional ESMTP keywords for return of content, enhanced     status codes, original recipient, and envelope ID     - Described use of null MAIL FROM address   4. Compliance     - Added an explicit section on conformance specifying conformance     to content or transport     - Improved conformance table inAppendix AVaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 55]

RFC 2421                        VPIM v2                   September 199820.  Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than   English.   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.Vaudreuil & Parsons         Standards Track                    [Page 56]